Friday, July 16, 2010

The major target for the Club of Rome was a population that was improving quality of life, health and the pursuit of happiness. It argued this was achieved by unsustainable exploitation of resources and destruction of nature.

As they explain; “If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limit to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.”

It’s 40 years on and the predicted end is nowhere in sight despite efforts to amplify, distort and falsify evidence. It is wrong like all other predictions made by members of the Club, especially the population predictions of Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren. In 1971, Ehrlich recommended reducing the US population from its then 205 million because it was unsustainable. Despite this, pursuit of Club goals is more active as members control national and international finances and economies, hold political offices, or work through many private agencies under the guise of saving the planet. It is not a conspiracy, but pursuit of a political philosophy that has failed everywhere and anywhere it was tried.

Gradually They Undermine Economies and Society

The doomsday philosophy believes everything is spiraling out of control and on such a scale that only government can deal with the problems. Obama’s administration, especially those who were members of the Club of Rome clearly pursue this belief. John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology was an active member publishing with Ehrlich the frightening 1977 work “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment”. The book proposed total government control. “Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment.” “The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.” (Link)

One writer summarizes the way such population control would occur as follows.

* Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
* The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation’s drinking water or in food;
* Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
* People who “contribute to social deterioration” (i.e. undesirables) “can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility”—in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.

Holdren and Ehrlich disavow these statements claiming they were part of a college textbook used to teach about energy policies. In his confirmation hearings Holdren told Senator David Vitter (R – LA) that he no longer considers it a role of government to determine an optimum population. So why is this a continuing issue?

First, Obama misled the US electorate into believing he was a moderate democrat and now his socialist agenda is fully exposed. Second, he appointed of people fully immersed in socialism and philosophies of the Club of Rome who will follow Obama’s lead and pursue what they denied or obscured at their appointments. Many were simply executive appointments that bypassed any vetting process. Third, the global strategy to use global warming and climate change as the basis for world government with total control continues unabated and essentially unreported.

Climate Change Remains The False Threat

Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 on climate change in Copenhagen was effectively sidelined by the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Revelation of the degree of corruption and deception involved in creating the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did not stop the bureaucratic and political juggernaut. Now the whitewash of that corruption will give added impetus to the original agenda. Positions taken in Copenhagen will proceed with added urgency, amplified by the economic shifts engendered by Obama undermining the US economy by creating massive deficit and debt; the largest portion of which is held by the Chinese government.

Consider and compare this statement from the Chinese leader in support of the delegation at Copenhagen with the statement of the Club of Rome. “After more than thirty years of reform and upon opening its doors, China has achieved immense success. Yet, the country continually faces evolving conditions at home and abroad, such as decelerating growth rates, issues of increased energy consumption and high pollution ratios, environmental and resource constraints, international trade frictions, as well as deepening socioeconomic divides.”

These concerns underscore why Zhao Baige vice-minister of the National Population and Family Planning Commission (NPFPC) made a presentation in Copenhagen. She argued that China’s one-child policy was climate friendly because it reduced the number of people despoiling the world. Baige cited the Master’s thesis of Thomas Wire, a graduate student of the London School of Economics (LSE) that claimed $7 spent on birth control resulted in one tonne reduction of carbon. The Optimum Population Trust (OPT) sponsored his thesis and patrons of the Trust are a who’s who list of ardent and powerful anthropogenic global warming advocates, including Paul Ehrlich. Another patron, Jonathan Porritt, was delighted his February 2007 suggestion that China could offset charges they were not doing enough to fight climate change by claiming reductions achieved by their one-child policy.

The one-child policy is the ultimate in draconian government control. A fine of approximately $27,000 is levied if the second child is not aborted. A family can choose to pay the fine, but the child is not recognized by the State that withholds a permanent residency document which denies access to public services such as education and healthcare. The policy effects are devastating the population structure of China. Stories abound of infanticide or sex-selective ultrasound to abort females, as families want a male first born. A gross imbalance is developing in the male/ female ratio among other problems as the New England Journal of Medicine reports.

Sir Crispin Trickell is another patron of the OPT who from the mid-1990s was Chairman of the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (CCICED). A summary of one presentation says, “He (Trickell) describes how the Chinese government has been experimenting with new measurements of economic wealth in terms of well-being. He believes the international community would do well to look to China for inspiration in this field.

Does this include the one-child policy? We have nothing to learn from China except what to avoid. Oh, by the way, Trickell is a long-term member of the Club of Rome.

Hit Counter

Fair Use Notice

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.